"The Muse"

[BTB]

Anyone any experiences using "The Muse" for in-flight music ?

http://www.avionicswest.com/muse.html

Or there less expensive options ?

BTB

[Scott Skylane]

BTB wrote:
> Anyone any experiences using "The Muse" for in-flight music ?
>
> http://www.avionicswest.com/muse.html
>
> Or there less expensive options ?
>
> BTB

I have used the Muse at work for a few years, and, while it does what it
says, I really do wish for some improvements.
First and foremost, the music sensing circuit, which automatically
turns the Muse on when a music input signal is detected, isn't nearly
sensitive enough. In other words, the volume of the music audio has to
be fairly high, or the Muse will cut out during softer parts of a song.
Personally, I like my music to be in the background, so I like the
volume level low. Unfortunately, the Muse doesn't work well at all in
that situation.
At one point, I even E-Mailed PSE about this, and was told that the
unit works as perfectly as possible, and that my needs couldn't possibly
be met. When I asked where I could tap into the circuitry, to
permanently enable the music throughput, they denied my request based on
"proprietary circuit" issues. Oh well.
Another issue is that my unit only seems to pass one of the stereo
channels through to the headset. I hear the music in both ears, but
it's only the left or right (not sure which) channel. Even after a
factory refurbishment (see below) this problem still exists.
The design really isn't up to daily, hard at work, use. Fortunately,
I am somewhat handy with a soldering iron, as I have had to repair
broken cable wires on the circuit board several times, due to inadequate
strain relief. When the stereo input cable developed an intermittant
open at the mini-plug end, I finally sent the unit in for repairs. They
charge a reasonable, one shot fee for repairs, and had the unit back to
me in a timely fashion. Unfortunately, the above mentioned audio issue
was not resolved, but the cable are all new.
I really wish there were some alternatives to try, but I think the
Muse is the only device of it's kind in the market.
Hello, Jim Weir???

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[George Patterson]

Scott Skylane wrote:
>
> I really wish there were some alternatives to try, but I think the
> Muse is the only device of it's kind in the market.

Sort of. You can also use any portable intercom which has a music input.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[H.P.]

>In other words, the volume of the music audio has to
> be fairly high, or the Muse will cut out during softer parts of a song.

The audio output device needs a compression circuit to keep audio levels
more near a constant output. There are portable cd players out there that
have such a feature.


> Another issue is that my unit only seems to pass one of the stereo
> channels through to the headset. I hear the music in both ears, but it's
> only the left or right (not sure which) channel.


Your headset may have a dip switch that's factory set to mono-out a stereo
input - like the Bose headset. Try the other setting. Or it may be wired in
mono. Try it on a stereo source at home.

[OtisWinslow]

I have one. It works fine for what it's intended to do. I think
an intercom with a music input would probably be a better plan.



"BTB" > wrote in message
news:689ke.22001$gp.9619@fed1read03...
> Anyone any experiences using "The Muse" for in-flight music ?
>
> http://www.avionicswest.com/muse.html
>
> Or there less expensive options ?
>
> BTB

[Thomas Borchert]

Btb,

> Or there less expensive options ?
>

Uh, a headset with music input? If you don't have THE headset you always wanted already, this might be a good point to upgrade to an ANR headset with music input (and while you're at it, cell phone input, too). Lightspeed's headsets come to mind. Something like 250 $ will buy you their entry level ANR, which will get you the headset, music and cell input. The Muse seems a tad expensive in comparison.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
MessageEnd:

[RST Engineering]

Why renamed to me?

Jim

[Jim Fisher]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Why renamed to me?
>
> Jim

We need you to fix that, Jim. When you're done, will ya do something about
that Iraq situation and Global Warming?

Thanks,
Jim Fisher

[Javier Henderson]

"Jim Fisher" > writes:

> "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Why renamed to me?
>
> We need you to fix that, Jim. When you're done, will ya do something about
> that Iraq situation and Global Warming?

I'd rather he'd work on important stuff. Like, no alcohol on mogas
in California so we can use the stuff in our Skylanes.

-jabv

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Javier Henderson > wrote:
> "Jim Fisher" > writes:

> > "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > Why renamed to me?

> > We need you to fix that, Jim. When you're done, will ya do something about
> > that Iraq situation and Global Warming?

> I'd rather he'd work on important stuff. Like, no alcohol on mogas
> in California so we can use the stuff in our Skylanes.

Hey! Run Jim for Gov!

:-)


Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard

--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer'at'frii.com WEB http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 227 Young Eagles!

[Javier Henderson]

writes:

> In rec.aviation.owning Javier Henderson > wrote:
> > "Jim Fisher" > writes:
>
> > > "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > > Why renamed to me?
>
> > > We need you to fix that, Jim. When you're done, will ya do something about
> > > that Iraq situation and Global Warming?
>
> > I'd rather he'd work on important stuff. Like, no alcohol on mogas
> > in California so we can use the stuff in our Skylanes.
>
> Hey! Run Jim for Gov!

It's been done. Instead we got the current example, who mandated that
the fuel leaves the refineries with the alcohol already mixed in.

-jav

[Scott Skylane]

RST Engineering wrote:

> Why renamed to me?
>
> Jim
>
>
O.K., I guess I'll get out the 2X4, and start smacking.

Jim, would you consider adding to your product line a device that feeds
music into an individual aviation headset. I would bet you could design
a pretty stout, useable device that would be superior in quality to, and
more reasonably priced than, the PSE Muse. I, for one, would be
interested in buying such a device.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Scott Skylane]

H.P. wrote:


> The audio output device needs a compression circuit to keep audio levels
> more near a constant output. There are portable cd players out there that
> have such a feature.

My iPod *does* have an audio compression feature, and it is turned on.
Quite simply, the minimum audio signal required to power up the Muse is
higher than I would like it to be.
>
> Your headset may have a dip switch that's factory set to mono-out a stereo
> input - like the Bose headset. Try the other setting. Or it may be wired in
> mono. Try it on a stereo source at home.
>
No switch on my headsets, they're good ol' mono DC's. Knowing that the
majority of aviation headsets are mono, PSE incorporated a mini switch
inside the Muse, to provide either stereo or mono output. The position
of said switch has no discernable effect on the music I hear in my headsets.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[R.L.]

Aviation headsets have notoriously higher impedance than the typical earbuds
that come with Ipods and other consumer audio devices. Might be an impedance
mismatch requiring a matching transformer.


"Scott Skylane" > wrote in message
...
> H.P. wrote:
>
>
> > The audio output device needs a compression circuit to keep audio
levels
> > more near a constant output. There are portable cd players out there
that
> > have such a feature.
>
> My iPod *does* have an audio compression feature, and it is turned on.
> Quite simply, the minimum audio signal required to power up the Muse is
> higher than I would like it to be.
> >
> > Your headset may have a dip switch that's factory set to mono-out a
stereo
> > input - like the Bose headset. Try the other setting. Or it may be wired
in
> > mono. Try it on a stereo source at home.
> >
> No switch on my headsets, they're good ol' mono DC's. Knowing that the
> majority of aviation headsets are mono, PSE incorporated a mini switch
> inside the Muse, to provide either stereo or mono output. The position
> of said switch has no discernable effect on the music I hear in my
headsets.
>
> Happy Flying!
> Scott Skylane
>

[Scott Skylane]

R.L. wrote:

> Aviation headsets have notoriously higher impedance than the typical earbuds
> that come with Ipods and other consumer audio devices. Might be an impedance
> mismatch requiring a matching transformer.
>

Ummm, yeah. And since the Muse is *designed* to input consumer audio
devices into aviation headsets, I would expect the built-in circuitry to
handle this just fine. IMHO, it does an "O.K" job, but not as good a
job as I would like.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[[email protected]]

I have a "Muse" and I think it's of rather unimpressive design. The
battery door is loose, it's always a bit of effort to get the battery
to fit in their correctly, and the music volume is insufficient even
with the my iPod turned up and a fresh batter in the Muse.

Also, it's ridiculously overpriced.

Sportys has a new product that might fit the bill, though:

http://www.sportys.com/acb/showdetl.cfm?&did=19&product_id=7145

Anyone try that yet?

This claims to be a both a cell-phone interface *and* a music
interface. That can be a benefit because the add on cell phone
interface like "AirCell" is *ridiculously* over expensive.

All these devices need to do is match connectors and match impedances.
There's just not much to it!

My $0.02,
Dave J

-- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com

BTB wrote:
> Anyone any experiences using "The Muse" for in-flight music ?
>
> http://www.avionicswest.com/muse.html
>
> Or there less expensive options ?
>
> BTB

[Paul kgyy]

I've used the music input on my Lightspeed 30-3G and it's fabulously
good, IMO. Kind of a pain to have all that automatic muting going on
while flying IFR, though.

[RST Engineering]

Without me doing a lot of research that most of you seem to have done, what
is the input, what is the output, and what is the function? And no, I won't
do stereo. There are good reasons.


Jim


"Scott Skylane" > wrote in message
...
> RST Engineering wrote:
>
>> Why renamed to me?
>>
>> Jim
> O.K., I guess I'll get out the 2X4, and start smacking.

[Thomas Borchert]

Paul,

> Kind of a pain to have all that automatic muting going on
> while flying IFR, though.
>

So switch it off. The switch is in the battery compartment.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jose]

> And no, I won't
> do stereo. There are good reasons.

I'd be curious to know what they are.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[RST Engineering]

>> And no, I won't do stereo. There are good reasons.
>
> I'd be curious to know what they are.

******************************

Stereo In The Aircraft

RST does not produce any stereo intercoms, audio panels, headsets, or other
devices that

reproduce stereo music. If you are absolutely determined to have stereo in
your aircraft, you

might just as well stop reading now, because anything we have to say isn't
going to change your

mind.

We made a conscious business and engineering decision not to produce any
product for stereo.

There are good aviation and engineering reasons for this.

First, a little background music or listening to the ballgame in a cockpit
environment isn't all

that bad. Sometimes flying is miles and miles of nothing but miles and
miles. On the other

hand, I know from my own love of music that when there is a particularly
good cut playing on my

home stereo and I have the headphones on (try "Sweet Sir Galahad" by Baez or
"Minstrel Of The

Dawn" by Lightfoot at somewhere slightly below the threshold of pain in the
'phones to see what I

mean) that I get totally lost within the music and the world just sort of
blurs away. Just

about the LAST thing I want in an airplane is a pilot that has zoned out on
music and is just

holding the controls to have something to do with their hands. That's item
#1.

Second, stereo is expensive. Yes, I understand that FLYING is expensive,
too, but to go to the

expense of specially-designed headphones, intercoms, audio panels, and all
the rest of it seems

to us to be on the other side of reasonable. Our company thrust has, and
always will be, to make

flying affordable for everybody. That's point #2.

Now to the engineering stuff. Suppose you try and take your stereo headset
and fly in somebody

else's airplane that is "regular airplane". Will your stereo headset work
without the trick

little switch on the cable to convert it to a monophonic headset? No, you
will hear one ear of

the conversation only. And what did that little switch do? It put both
earphones in parallel,

which cut the impedance of the headset in half. Properly designed, this
MIGHT not be noticeable

to the aircraft radio, or it might. Since airplane radios weren't designed
to figure out whether

or not you were messing around with a stereo headset, the manufacturer
didn't worry about making

sure his radio would drive that low of an impedance.

Even worse, if somebody else takes his standard aircraft headset and puts it
into your stereo

airplane jack, it will short out one of the channels. Depending on the
design of the intercom,

the best you can hope for is that one stereo channel will be dead in
everybody's headphones.

Second worst is that the short on that channel will blow out the amplifier
for that channel. In

a really lousy design, that short will cause the whole intercom/audio panel
to fail, leaving you

without any headphone audio at all.

Given all these reasons, RST has decided not to produce any stereo
equipment. While it probably

won't sway your decision for stereo in your airplane, we thought you should
at least consider

these problems.

Jim

**************************************************

[Jose]

You gave three reasons to not produce stereo equipment for aircraft.

1: One can get lost in the music... to which I ask whether it matters
whether it is in stereo or not.

2: Cost of stereo... to which I ask whether the second channel really
is that much more expensive. In the case of a headphone, I don't see
where the extraordinary expense would come from.

3: Compatibility... well, ok if you are designing entire panels (which
I assume RST is). But there are compatibility issues with mono too.
If others are producing stereo, you have the same issues.

I would also point out an advantage to stereo, used properly (which I've
actually never seen)... and that is the ability to put the intercom
(mostly) in one ear while ATC is (mostly) in the other, or to put Com1
on the left and Com2 on the right (which would be a godsend when trying
to get the ATIS or monitoring CTAF while staying with ATC).

Jose
r.a.owning trimmed - I don't follow that group
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

Furthermore...

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
> You gave three reasons to not produce stereo equipment for aircraft.
>
> 1: One can get lost in the music... to which I ask whether it matters
> whether it is in stereo or not.

IMHO, it probably does, assuming the music has been recorded to take full
advantage of stereo (much music is not). However, that's irrelevant since
at least some of the market for the device would be for people not flying
the airplane, and for the remainder it's the pilot's prerogative to make
that choice.

For a business run by someone who also has a paternalistic "I know what's
best for you, and even if I can make money doing something, I'm not going to
bother because I know what's best for you", I guess it makes sense to try to
avoid problems with even that small slice of the market that might be
affected (due to the combination of not being able to concentrate, and
listening to a particular kind of music), even if that means ignoring the
rest of the market for which that reason doesn't exist.

But for a sensible company with the bandwidth to design and sell such a
device, it's a silly reason to not do so.

> 2: Cost of stereo... to which I ask whether the second channel really is
> that much more expensive. In the case of a headphone, I don't see where
> the extraordinary expense would come from.

To be fair, we're not talking about a headphone here (are we?). AFAIK,
we're talking about a device like "The Muse" that just works better than
that device. That said, yes the extra channel will increase cost
(slightly...most of the real cost is likely in R&D and sales and
marketing...surely the actual hardware doesn't cost that much, even if the
second channel doubled the cost, which I doubt it does).

But I can't believe it would increase the cost significantly compared to
what the device would sell for, nor should that be an impediment to
designing and marketing such a device, since a more reliable, more capable
device can also command a higher sales price.

> 3: Compatibility... well, ok if you are designing entire panels (which I
> assume RST is). But there are compatibility issues with mono too. If
> others are producing stereo, you have the same issues.

Again, in this particular case we're not talking about compatibility at all
(other than the need to be able to select stereo or mono output). Ignoring,
for a moment, that the issues related to stereo intercoms and headsets are
entirely solveable (proven by the many successful stereo-capable intercoms
and headsets), those just don't apply here. It'd be like a car manufacturer
saying "we don't provide a full-size spare tire for your full-size
sport-utility vehicle, because we can't fit a full-size spare tire in our
sub-compact models".

> I would also point out an advantage to stereo, used properly (which I've
> actually never seen)... and that is the ability to put the intercom
> (mostly) in one ear while ATC is (mostly) in the other, or to put Com1 on
> the left and Com2 on the right (which would be a godsend when trying to
> get the ATIS or monitoring CTAF while staying with ATC).

Sure...those are potentially good examples of ways to use stereo in an
intercom/audio panel device to benefit the pilot and the safety of the
flight. But I'm not seeing the relevance here (except perhaps as a rebuttal
to the general philosophy of "we ain't doing stereo, no way, no how").

> Jose
> r.a.owning trimmed - I don't follow that group

Your post, your choice, I guess. But just because YOU don't follow the
group doesn't mean the cross-post wasn't appropriate. I'd say in this case,
this was a reasonable choice of cross-posting.

Pete

[Thomas Borchert]

RST,

> Given all these reasons, RST has decided not to produce any stereo
> equipment.
>

Not sure I can follow. All your points except no. 1 have been solved
quite well by most all other companies in the business, and the price
delta has become real small. For headsets and audio panels, stereo is
the de-facto standard now. And no. 1 is really not your decision to
make, is it? It's the decision of the customer. But, if that's the way
you want to do business and it works, by all means do it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jose,

> 3: Compatibility... well, ok if you are designing entire panels (which
> I assume RST is). But there are compatibility issues with mono too.
> If others are producing stereo, you have the same issues.
>

Other companies have solved this problem to perfection with electronics
sensing whether a mono or a stereo plug is plugged in. It's a non-issue.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[RST Engineering]

Have been for 33 years now. Seen a lot of them come and go. We are still
here. Must be doing SOMETHING right every now and again.

Jim




But, if that's the way
> you want to do business and it works, by all means do it.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[George Patterson]

Jose wrote:
>
> I would also point out an advantage to stereo, used properly (which I've
> actually never seen)... and that is the ability to put the intercom
> (mostly) in one ear while ATC is (mostly) in the other, or to put Com1
> on the left and Com2 on the right (which would be a godsend when trying
> to get the ATIS or monitoring CTAF while staying with ATC).

You are unlikely to see this. Tests run in the late 70s fairly conclusively
proved that people cannot listen to two conversations at one time this way; that
is, when one conversation was piped into one ear via a headset speaker and
another was piped into the other ear, the listener couldn't make sense of either
conversation. As I recall, the tests were performed using telephone headsets
(IOW, the listener was trying to listen to two telephone conversations) and were
not directly related to aircraft.

IMO, the current solution of having the intercom mute down if ATC sounds off is
much safer, and listening to both COM1 and COM2 at the same time would give you
a better chance of understanding things in your second example.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[Jose]

>> I would also point out an advantage to stereo, used properly (which I've actually never seen)... and that is the ability to put the intercom (mostly) in one ear while ATC is (mostly) in the other, or to put Com1 on the left and Com2 on the right (which would be a godsend when trying to get the ATIS or monitoring CTAF while staying with ATC).
>
> You are unlikely to see this. Tests run in the late 70s fairly conclusively proved that people cannot listen to two conversations at one time this way; that is, when one conversation was piped into one ear via a headset speaker and another was piped into the other ear, the listener couldn't make sense of either conversation. As I recall, the tests were performed using telephone headsets (IOW, the listener was trying to listen to two telephone conversations) and were not directly related to aircraft.

Hmmm... I"ll have to try this. Did the tests compare split listening
with merged listening? Or just conclude that listening to two
conversations is hard period?

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[RST Engineering]

I'll say it is. DId you ever try to listen to your wife and your girlfriend
at the same time?

{;-)


Jim



> Hmmm... I"ll have to try this. Did the tests compare split listening with
> merged listening? Or just conclude that listening to two conversations is
> hard period?

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, George Patterson > said:
>Jose wrote:
>> I would also point out an advantage to stereo, used properly (which I've
>> actually never seen)... and that is the ability to put the intercom
>> (mostly) in one ear while ATC is (mostly) in the other, or to put Com1
>> on the left and Com2 on the right (which would be a godsend when trying
>> to get the ATIS or monitoring CTAF while staying with ATC).
>conversation. As I recall, the tests were performed using telephone headsets
>(IOW, the listener was trying to listen to two telephone conversations) and were
>not directly related to aircraft.

That's not a good test for this situation. The way I do it is to put the
ATIS on the overhead speakers. I'm not trying to follow two
conversations, I'm trying to get the ATIS while only paying enough
attention to the headphones to hear my call sign. When I hear my call
sign, it's simple to stop paying attention to the ATIS (or hit the speaker
button to turn it off) to hear the call, and then go back to listening to
the ATIS.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
The superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid situations in which he
has to demonstrate his superior skill.

[Morgans]

"George Patterson" > wrote \

> You are unlikely to see this. Tests run in the late 70s fairly
conclusively
> proved that people cannot listen to two conversations at one time this
way; that
> is, when one conversation was piped into one ear via a headset speaker and
> another was piped into the other ear, the listener couldn't make sense of
either
> conversation.

I would have to say that depends on the listener, and their skills.

I was trained as a band director, which involves being able to listen to the
3rd clarinet part, (for example) while the whole band is playing. I have no
problem selectively listening to the conversation I want to. I did it
easily at OSH last year, listening to the point communications band, while
listening to the tower.
--
Jim in NC

[George Patterson]

Jose wrote:
>
> Or just conclude that listening to two
> conversations is hard period?

As I recall, the conclusion was that it was impossible.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[George Patterson]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
> That's not a good test for this situation. The way I do it is to put the
> ATIS on the overhead speakers.

That works. What the study indicated will not work is to put the ATIS on one
earphone and ATC on the other.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.